colormered
Regular Member
imported post
Even though the legislative session is over for this year, we need to let our representatives know that our interest in their legislative views is ongoing. With the pressures of a legislature in session abated until later in the year, it is an excellent opportunity to contact our representatives to find out why they voted the way they did on certain issues of interest to us or to express our support of the way they represented our views, if that be the case. If by chance they voted against our wishes, we can take the time to express our views and the reasons we feel the way we do.
If we are unable to influence the way they see an issue that is of considerable importance, we can look at the stance their challengers may take on the issues before the time comes to make a decision.
Here is part of the letter I sent to my representative, Curt Webb, after he voted in favor of HB473 with the anti-gun amendment:
Curt,
Now that the session has ended, I am curious to ask what you found reasonable about the amendment to Oda's bill. Never mind how Oda could have possibly agreed to the amendment, let alone vote for it, the amendment virtually gutted the bill that Oda proposed in the first place. Considering in the first place that laws apply only to the law-abiding, (criminals by definition don't obey the law) what is reasonable in placing further restrictions on the "acceptable" actions of those who aren't causing any problems in the first place?
Remember that the right after drafting the Constitution detailing powers granted to the government BY THE PEOPLE, the Bill of Rights was promptly drawn up placing limits on that very government, restricting what that government was allowed to do. Restrictions that were placed on the government by the very people that had granted powers to the government by the Constitution. Those restrictions on the government included the very carefully chosen words "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." (emphasis added). That restriction was added, in part, because the government of that time (England) was attempting to disarm the people by confiscating the muskets and cannon owned by the people of Lexington and Concord.
To put it in the terms of the Founding Fathers, WHAT DEGREE OF TYRANNY IS REASONABLE?
I am very interested in how he responds. Meanwhile, I am planning to seek election as a county delegate at the caucus meeting next Tuesday.
Even though the legislative session is over for this year, we need to let our representatives know that our interest in their legislative views is ongoing. With the pressures of a legislature in session abated until later in the year, it is an excellent opportunity to contact our representatives to find out why they voted the way they did on certain issues of interest to us or to express our support of the way they represented our views, if that be the case. If by chance they voted against our wishes, we can take the time to express our views and the reasons we feel the way we do.
If we are unable to influence the way they see an issue that is of considerable importance, we can look at the stance their challengers may take on the issues before the time comes to make a decision.
Here is part of the letter I sent to my representative, Curt Webb, after he voted in favor of HB473 with the anti-gun amendment:
Curt,
Now that the session has ended, I am curious to ask what you found reasonable about the amendment to Oda's bill. Never mind how Oda could have possibly agreed to the amendment, let alone vote for it, the amendment virtually gutted the bill that Oda proposed in the first place. Considering in the first place that laws apply only to the law-abiding, (criminals by definition don't obey the law) what is reasonable in placing further restrictions on the "acceptable" actions of those who aren't causing any problems in the first place?
Remember that the right after drafting the Constitution detailing powers granted to the government BY THE PEOPLE, the Bill of Rights was promptly drawn up placing limits on that very government, restricting what that government was allowed to do. Restrictions that were placed on the government by the very people that had granted powers to the government by the Constitution. Those restrictions on the government included the very carefully chosen words "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." (emphasis added). That restriction was added, in part, because the government of that time (England) was attempting to disarm the people by confiscating the muskets and cannon owned by the people of Lexington and Concord.
To put it in the terms of the Founding Fathers, WHAT DEGREE OF TYRANNY IS REASONABLE?
I am very interested in how he responds. Meanwhile, I am planning to seek election as a county delegate at the caucus meeting next Tuesday.